We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently dismissed the challenges brought by the Sierra Club to Ohio EPA's 10 ton per year de minimis exemption for Best Available Technology (BAT) analysis

On January 4, 2012, we reported to you my view that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin “could not have been more wrong” in finding that an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) imposed direct CERCLA liability on the purchaser

We reported to you last week about the questionable December 19, 2011 decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in U.S. v. NCR Corp., which held that an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) created CERCLA liability because of “noncompliance” with CERCLA Section 107(a

On December 19, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied defendant Appleton Paper’s Motion for Summary Judgment that sought a determination that Appleton was not liable to the United States pursuant to the cost-recovery provisions of CERCLA Section 107(a

When the United States Supreme Court issued its wetlands defining decision in Rapanos v. United States, environmental practitioners, real estate developers, and consultants believed that boundaries would be set for determining when a wetland was regulated under the Clean Water Act